I don’t like the term “humble brag” it implies that one is trying to lord something over another with the intent of making oneself look good. When I say that I know what works in a video game or what doesn’t work, I’m saying this after playing hundreds of games from different genres and different sizes. I’m not saying my opinion is the end all and be all, but I have an idea of not only what I like and want out of a video game but also what others do as well. I might not like specific games with specific mechanics, but I can understand why others do enjoy them.

That said, I rarely enjoy turn-based combat or turn-based strategy games because of their mechanics. They feel lifeless as a whole. Often games focused around what Pokémon has used for over 20 years feel mindless, they have as much life to them as Nokia, Atari, and Coleco do at manufacturing games consoles in 2020. When I play a game, I’m looking not only for a good story, but good gameplay to interweave with that narrative that’s being told. A mindless repetition to get to the story isn’t what I’m looking for, sadly that’s often the case with these games.

While we’re on the lifelessness of gameplay, let’s talk about a dead genre that’s often kicked to see it’s still alive. The movie (and TV) tie-in game was last used for Jumanji: The Video Game, something that looks like you need a controller for your mobile phone. “Back in my day,” we would have everything from Transformers, The Simpsons, Futurama, King Kong, and the god of them all, Spider-Man 2. In recent years it has been… Cars 3? The buggy mess that’s known as Friday the 13th: The Game? Also there was Ratchet & Clank, a game based on a movie based on some games. For me, I like 2015’s Mad Max, but it’s not connected to one movie.

My point is how the tie-in game went from this quick cash grab with an amusing game to nothing but a cash grab. I don’t hate the people playing these mobile phone games, I hate the executives ordering another pile of money to waste on gold-plated hookers and cocaine without the game to reference hookers or blow. We went from a game making devs some money, to “money, all of it. Now!” In my opinion, it is a movie or TV show devaluing a much better medium by just wanting to make money instead of a good product.

I miss when we’d get a few movie or TV tie-in games a year, but that’s not the point; there’s one I have been playing. It is also a turn-based strategy/Tactics game that’s an X-Com (or XCOM) like or lite. I should say, this isn’t a review, I’ve been far too detailed in my set up for this to be a review. I want to talk about the mechanics that do and don’t work in these instances of games. To do this article I’ve been playing a few games many people have suggested in the past, along with what I knew linked up with the game in question that started this, along with one or two other games as a baseline.

Last month I spoke about how I was excited to play Narcos: Rise of the Cartels in our regular Twitch Prime piece. After playing a couple of hours I understand what it wants to be, but I know why it isn’t the X-Com or XCOM game it is trying to be. No, I’m not saying you shouldn’t buy an XCOM-like game, I get a happy feeling followed by painful memories of all those times Dark Souls and Souls-likes inseminated me. However, when it is done poorly, I will get up on my soapbox saying what does and doesn’t work for specific games.

I don’t hate them all, in fact, I enjoyed Mutant Year Zero on Epic a few months ago. The Bearded Ladies’ Mutant Year Zero is probably being best XCOM-like I’ve played, while I’d call Kuju’s Narcos an XCOM-lite because it is doing the same type of thing with a lack depth or understanding why that works. I want to talk about specifically why some things in Narcos don’t work and what could improve several turn-based games. Part of this was born of Narcos being slightly irritating, the other part was Eurogamer’s “Someone should make a game about” series.

With that in mind, what does work in Narcos and what works in turn-based combat? Your ability to think about your next move, it is the core of any turn-based game out there. To make that the most impactful your decisions have to be weighed up with the rewards. This is where I sadly have to kick Kuju for their TV tie-in game. There’s too much risk for very little reward. Speaking as one who doesn’t watch the show, your only semi-decent reward of the story isn’t much of an incentive.

Why are risk and reward important? Because you are either moving your men out into the open or they are stuck in cover with a thumb up themselves. I should specify, you can use some cover as such, but if you want to fire around a corner with a gun you are living in the future. Given you play as DEA agents (cops that will harass minorities) for part of the game, you’d think they would employ some tactics like peeking around a corner to fire. This concept is something aliens can do with the same game engine back in 2012’s XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

This means that you are at greater risk when the AI isn’t dreadful. It might not be a review, but it is impossible to have a tactic to fight stupidity. There is an entire level where AI will turtle in a building until they can fire on one of your men that they can’t see before moving to shoot them. To make that worse you have to pay for injured men to be healed when back at the CIA’s South American HQ. The only other reward is some in-game money to buy men and heal them.

Then there’s taking turns, which is more the Wargroove style of “to me, to you, to me, to you.” This is fine until you’re down to the last enemy unit and you can only move X distance, much like XCOM. Then it is just a dull game of tennis going back and forth until you’re in that aforementioned spot to be hit without course. You see, recently I reviewed another turn-based tactics game by The Bearded Ladies, developers of Mutant Year Zero. Corruption 2029 doesn’t stay in that back and forth. Instead it allows the player to run around in real-time while outside of combat.

You see, recently I’ve been playing FTL on our YouTube channel, and while it’s not a truly turn-based game everyone plays it as such. The point I’m getting to here is that that turn-based movement only works when there is a sense of danger, something Narcos and other games do not have in abundance in these moments. There are mechanics in 2012’s XCOM where this time is used to inject more enemies, though it is used sparingly throughout my experience.

How about the combat in general? Well, In the case of Narcos it feels like every animation has to end and reset every time there is a movement which is a common issue with turn-based tactics, making the game slower and combat sluggish. Though Narcos, in particular, doesn’t pack a great punch. Guns often feel like you are spitting Tic-Tacs at the enemy from across the room hoping they hit. Nothing feels thunderous and explosive, and since I have a man with a grenade launcher on my team that’s impressive.

Once again, it isn’t an issue solely felt in Narcos, but when XCOM is sci-fi and Corruption 2029 is a Warframe-looking take on the genre that’s waved away with magic sci-fi, Narcos runs into another issue. Being set in the 80s, the height of the drug wars in South America between the American backed DEA and cartel lead drug runners, there’s something a little more real in it. That is why the setting is the downfall for some of the game’s other facets.

However, let’s talk broader than one game, because as you can tell in a month’s long research, I’ve played a few of these turn-based tactics games. The one that was surprising to me was Wargroove, a pixel art Japanese-inspired turn-based tactics game, which is a string of words that would normally put me into a dazed lull. However, what Wargroove does better is options, not just your full-screen nonsense, proper gameplay influencing options. Yes, your difficulty can be changed just enough that I’d put it up there with Celeste on its “Far too easy for gameplay but you enjoy the story” to shouting “Why do I no longer have genitals!”

However, with those beautiful settings you can strike the perfect balance of gameplay and story. It also has one more trick up its sleeve I like more than most, the ability to skip what you don’t care for. I’ve already spoken about the back and forth of moving around in a tactics game, but why do you need to see the attacks at the end fully animated? If you can get across enough information (i.e health and damage), you don’t need to play every pullback of a bow or swish of a sword. This is where Wargroove lets you decide what you see. You can watch your turn, never, always, or just watch commanders. Skipping unnecessary faff.

This keeps the action rolling and you can do a lot more in a shorter amount of time. One of the biggest turn-based tactics games pre-video games is probably Chess, a game that keeps pace by forcing you to move with a clock ticking, that’s where difficulty kicks in and you make mistakes. A majority of turn-based tactics miss out on this because of animations forcibly slowing everything down. While FTL is played as a turn-based game, because it isn’t really one because it has this quick edge to it, bringing a sense of pressure to all your ideas and processes.

Another I played recently was the 2012 re-imagining of XCOM, a game that’s for the most about the resiliency of humans from a story point. It is easily the one I suck the most hours into, as it is another game that you are fighting a clock in and trying to stave off the ticking with your rewards. This time it is the management side of the clock that is ticking down as you lose China because panic has risen too much. You use your rewards and resources to stop panic in as many places as possible to fight off the impending horde of aliens bearing down on you.

This is how rewards and systems work in games, they have to loop back to give you a reason to research, develop weapons, and further go into parts of the game you normally wouldn’t. One of the issues with both Mutant Year Zero and Corruption 2029 was the complete lack of a true gameplay loop. The latter would just give you weapons and augments for completing the levels, meaning that there was nothing to keep you motivated to play. You don’t have to play the level to develop a part in research to complete another level, it’s all done by one slow system.

The final thing I want to touch on is aesthetics, those pretty things that catch our eye in a trailer before playing. The non-argument of the last decade had to be Octopath Traveler‘s beautiful art, bending what was before it and what will come after. I’m not 100% sold on gameplay, but no one can deny this homage to “classic” JRPGs of the SNES-era is both stylistic and gorgeous. This alone sets itself apart from everything else in the genre, making it admirable to bring a wider and newer audience in with older gameplay.

These are all things Narcos: Rise of Cartels doesn’t consider at all, rather ignoring them in favor of trying to avoid a lawsuit over trademarks of gameplay mechanics. As a turn-based tactics game, I think this is one of the lessons of how not to do it. Sometimes it is going in the opposite direction of making things quicker, much like The Banner Saga. It makes every individual take a move then switch instead of moving as a party. This just makes it all slower as you sit through the team switching animation several times, for reasons I’ve yet to comprehend.

One reason to use that system over the party system would be a Superhot and John Wick Hex-style replay. This would look more natural as an optional fun thing, otherwise, it is just forcing what Wargroove lets you skip to give brevity to these fights. What Narcos does is not advance the genre, but rather plays in a smelly hole called the 2000s that has been defecated in a couple of times in the years since.

Phenixx Gaming is everywhere you are. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.